Legislative WMDs

The following was posted by Tea Party Member on freerepublic.com.

Boehner Needs a Reasonable, Effective Tea Party Compromise

Here is what this particular poster suggested as a compromise for Boehner:

1. Short term, immediate increase in the debt ceiling in exchange for Boehners spending cuts, as trivial as they might be. This will trigger a temporary debt ceiling increase enough for three months.
2. Put constraints on the committee-created spending cuts. In three months, there should be an up-or-down vote on the bill that will trigger another temporary debt ceiling increase, enough for another three months. Constraints like the following *MUST* must be stipulated:
   1. No taxes or tax expenditure actions are to be included. Tax-related actions must be included in a separate tax reform bill (see below).
   2. The plan must require that they come up with $500 billion in short term cuts (as scored by the CBO) and $3 trillion in cuts over the next five years and $8 trillion over the next ten years. The mix of those cuts is left to the committee
   3. At least 30% of the cuts have to come from entitlements.
   4. There *must* be an open debate: not just politicians standing by themselves talking to an empty room on C-SPAN, but formal debates on primetime, open to all the major news channels, where all sides (including the Tea Party, Progressives, Libertarians, etc) present and discuss their proposals. In the final week, the leaders of each party and their champions will debate the details of the bill.
   5. All appropriations bills in the future (including the one for 2012) will be frozen for one week and subject to scrutiny by the public and open to debate as described above during that period.
   It would be absolutely moronic to agree to committee-formulated spending cuts without any constraints. It would degenerate into the same silly “tax billionaires, throw grandma over the cliff” debates. If Boehner agrees to a committee without constraints, we would have to seriously question not only his political savvy, but his overall intelligence, just like when he started off the negotiations by declaring that the McConnell proposal was the backup plan. If he does that, he probably shouldn’t be the Speaker of the House.
   
3. The House of Representatives will come up with a comprehensive Tax Reform Bill, hopefully something towards a flat tax or even replacing the income tax completely with a national sales tax. Six months from now, the Senate will vote on the bill. Before the vote, there *must* be open debate during primetime on national television. The up-or-down vote on the bill will trigger another temporary ceiling increase in three months.
4. The House of Representatives will come up with a Balanced Budget Amendment which the Senate will vote on nine months from now. Before the vote, there *must* be open debate during primetime on national television. The up-or-down vote on the amendment will trigger another ceiling increase .

A couple of things stand out here for me.  While this may be a suggested compromise for Boehner to make with the Tea Party, I'm curious what this person would suggest as the compromise Tea Party members should make with Democrats?  I'm also assuming that if all these bullet points got shot down, the Tea Party would be respectful of the outcome of the vote and move on in some capacity.

In the end, whether or not I agree with the specifics of the post, I can't dispute that the post has some deliberate, rational thought process behind it.  What throws it all into question is a statement near the end.

Just as the citizen army during the Revolutionary War used Kentucky Rifles and guerilla warfare, the Republicans need to use the debt ceiling as a weapon. The debt ceiling leverage is the only way to force the Senate to come out of their holes (like Hobbits) and address the spending problems in a serious, straightforward, non-game-playing way in order to avoid the real Armageddon we are undoubtedly headed towards.

My fear is that once the Tea Party starts considering the debt ceiling a weapon (too late), they might not show enough restraint when they push for change.  Is it enough to put forward Tea Party measures under threat of national default even if they lose?  How slippery is the slope to use that threat not just to bring issues to national attention, but to coerce legislative will?

It may not be fair to take a post I found on freerepublic.com and act as if it speaks for the entire Tea Party.  I do feel, however, this wartime mentality does exist in the Tea Party.  Weapons are needed for this fight, instead of rational, adult debate.  The notion that you win some, you lose some, may not be acceptable to some members of the legislative branch.  Could they find grounds to compromise on or is an all-or-nothing approach intrinsic to the Tea Party platform?